Showing Archived Posts

Our efforts to reach this deal have affirmed the view of the United States as a tough but principled leader; rejecting it would be read in many quarters as a superpower intent on inflicting pain for its own sake.

Both sides in the debate over the Iran nuclear deal are in full campaign mode, counting heads in Congress for the vote in mid-September, and making contingency plans. The hashtag #IranDeal is being used to promote arguments pro and con. The White House praised last week’s endorsement by Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat from New York, who is Jewish. Deal opponents point to Sen. Charles Schumer, a Democrat from New York, who is also Jewish. Republicans are reportedly preparing legislation to sanction Iran if the deal is rejected by vote – or Obama invokes his right to veto.

‘When it comes to Iran’s nuclear capability, this [deal] is the best option,” wrote retired Israeli Admiral Ami Ayalon, former head of Israel’s secret service agency Shin Bet, in a full-page ad in The New York Times newspaper. The ad, signed by more than two dozen leaders in the American Jewish community, directly opposes Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanhayu’s very public criticism of the accord. A Congressional vote on the pact will take place next month. In the meantime, members of the American Jewish lobby find themselves split over a deal that everyone agrees will have long-term consequences.

“From the time I first ran for president, I have said that we need to end the mindset in American politics that prioritizes military action over diplomacy and that rushes into conflict. That mindset is what led us to go to war in Iraq, and we are still dealing with the consequences of that decision more than a decade later. As commander-in-chief, I have not hesitated to use force when necessary. If Iran does not abide by this deal, it’s possible that we won’t have any other choice than to act militarily. However, we cannot in good conscience justify a march toward war before we’ve exhausted diplomacy.”

By Barbara Slavin A week after President Barack Obama passionately defended the Iran deal in a speech at American University, the political ripples keep spreading. Many commentators have complained about Obama’s tough tone and his equation of Republican opponents of the deal with Iranian hardliners who chant “Death to America” at staged government rallies. Others […]

The arguments for and against the nuclear accord between Iran and the United States and the rest of the P+5 countries have ramped up per the open letter signed by three dozen retired generals and admirals supporting the pact and urging Congress to do the same. Others are decrying one of President Obama’s main justifications for the pact: there exists no other alternative – except war.

Faced with a crisis of such magnitude, the choice for an American president tends to be between a bad option and a worse one. But whatever Obama has chosen to do or not to do, the outcome has been far from convincing: there seems to be no end to this war.

President Obama’s race to the White House in 2008 included a promise the get the United States out of Iraq. Just over six years later, US combat troops are back home from Iraq. But thanks to a failed experiment with US-backed democracy there, the Islamic State has taken over parts of both Iraq and Syria, pulling the US back into the turmoil.

With a September deadline hanging over the US Congress to vote on the accord, stakeholders are out in force, either selling or debunking the deal. President Obama said the choice is between diplomacy or “some form of war” during remarks in Washington. Opponents in turn burned up the web, arguing Tehran can never be trusted.

None of them, from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin “historic mistake” Netanyahu to U.S. Senator Lindsey “it’s a declaration of war on Israel” Graham, has yet risen to the challenge of offering a better real-world alternative

The courts already have ruled that greenhouse gases are pollutants that must be regulated by the EPA, and to win global cooperation in the climate battle, the United States must go into the Paris climate talks in October prepared to help lead the way. In this fight for survival, timid measures will not work.

The Obama administration has unveiled its Clean Power Plan, a set of mandates that will require states to sharply reduce their carbon emissions by 2022. Not surprisingly, there is strong opposition, most especially politicians and businesses from coal-producing states. But environmentalists are praising the “bold” new rules, which are expected to spark a series of lawsuits.